• 인터넷정보학회지
• /
• 제14권3호
• /
• pp.21-34
• /
• 2013

The multistakeholder model of Internet governance is based on the belief that the stakeholder groups should be able to agree on the rules and principles in governing the Internet space. The global expansion of the sweeping influence of the Internet has heightened the awareness of international governments on the importance of Internet governance, but since the Internet has developed mostly through voluntary participation by various groups, the organization with the greatest ability to manage the Internet space currently is ICANN(Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), the U.S. based organization that manages the assignment of Internet domain names and IP addresses. Although ICANN has attempted to globalize its operation, governments in some nations are voicing dissatisfaction over the fact that the voice of the governments are not adequately represented within ICANN. This paper examines how the concept of multistakeholderissm has been used in WSIS(World Summit on Information Society), ICANN(Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) and the ITU(International Telecommunication Union) as an important principle in emphasizing their roles in Internet governance.

• 인터넷정보학회논문지
• /
• 제16권4호
• /
• pp.111-120
• /
• 2015

이 연구는 글로벌 정보사회의 변화의 맥락에서 인터넷의 기술적 성격과 인터넷 생태계의 특성이 결합되어 나타난 인터넷 거버넌스를 다루었다. 인터넷 거버넌스는 정부, 기업, 시민사회 등 다양한 행위자(diversified actors)들이 함께 관련된 멀티스테이크홀더 모델을 원칙으로 하고 있다. 이에 따라 글로벌 거버넌스의 참여자들이 크게 증가하고 있다. 또한 시민사회가 공식적인 구성원으로 참여하여, 정부, 민간 기업과 함께 인터넷 거버넌스의 3각 구도의 한 축으로 자리 잡았다. 이는 국제기구의 주체가 정부 간 국제기구로부터 민간 중심의 국제 질서로 변화하는 중요한 의미를 가진다. ICT의 발전을 반영하여 ICANN과 같은 민간 국제기구 모델이 등장하고, 인터넷거버넌스포럼(IGF)이 멀티스테이크홀더 모델이라는 새로운 체계의 중심으로 자리 잡고 있다. 이렇게 인터넷 거버넌스는 국제정보사회 거버넌스의 새로운 장을 열고 있으며, 더 나아가 글로벌 거버넌스의 새로운 변화를 제시하는 중요한 위상을 보여주고 있다.

• 인터넷정보학회지
• /
• 제14권4호
• /
• pp.63-76
• /
• 2013

This short report introduces the general background why Brazil conference is being prepared and what topics would be undertaken and what goals are being taken into account. It overviews what differences from traditional telecommunication governance, internet governance has had in its historical development and how such differences had been formed from its technological differences and the regulatory policy shift from common carrier regulation to privatization. Moreover, the fact that open, voluntary, bottom-up, diverse stakeholder's participation had evolved throughout the historical development of the internet, had established the present multistakeholder governance model from technological standardization to addressing scheme policies. ICANN, which has governed internet addressing schemes since the earlier 2000s, had developed address policies including IANA function from Jon Postel and technical community's legacy management system into contract based formation between ICANN and gTLD, ccTLD registries. And it made dispute resolution policies responding to trademark disputes and resolved gTLD monopoly issue by introducing new TLD generation and the separation of registry and registar. However, there had been challenges on the legitimacy of ICANN due to its dependency on the Federal Government of the U.S. particularly in its oversight role over ICANN and IANA contract. WSIS raised up internet governance issues including addressing governance, and set up IGF as a discussion platform for multistakeholders to discuss and share all views on other internet related public policies. IGF's loose and non-binding discussion once frustrated governments and other stakeholders, but more focused discussion and visible outcomes have consolidated its unique role for internet governance discourses. Particularly, IGF addressed many emerging internet related issues like cybersecurity, privacy, net neuratlity, development related issues. WTPF of 2013, after WCIT debate on whether traditional telecommunication regulation could be applied to internet infrastructure, suggested other governance issues such as the transition to ipv6, IXP coordination etc. How to make sure the legitimacy of internet addressing governance and how and where other internet related public policies could be undertaken are fundamental tasks for internet governance. Brazil conference, which has been motivated by the breakdown of trust in internet governance from NSA mass surveillance revealed by Snowden, faces these questions and try to make consensus on principles, institutions and roadmap for internet governance in multistakeholder participation way.